Skip to main content

system of differential equations in Mathematica



enter image description here How can I formulate the addressed system of differential equations in Mathematica for to find a general solution for $f[x_1, x_2, x_3, y_1, y_2, y_3]$.


https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1530498/system-of-differential-equations-in-mathematica



Answer



I have transcribed the code from the image, and corrected the errors identified by the OP, MichaelE2 and me:


p = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], x1];
q = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], x2];
r = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], x3];
o = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], y1];
x = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], y2];
a = D[f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], y3];


equ1 = 2 x1 p + 2 x2 q + 2 x3 r - y1 o - y2 x - y3 a;
equ2 = -x1 p - x2 q - x3 r + 2 y1 o + 2 y2 x + 2 y3 a;
equ3 = (x1 (x1 + 2 x2 + 2 x3)) p + (x2 (x2 + 2 x3)) q + (x3^2) r 
    - (y1 (x2 + x3)) o - y2 x3 x;
equ4 = (y1 (y1 + 2 y2 + 2 y3)) o + (y2 (y2 + 2 y3)) x + (y3^2) a 
    - (x1 (y1 + y2 + y3)) p - x2 (y2 +  y3) q - x3 y3 r;
DSolve[{equ1 == 0, equ2 == 0, equ3 == 0, equ4 == 0}, f, {x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3}]

DSolve returns un-evaluated, meaning that it can not solve the system of equations.



Addendum


Nonetheless, with equ4 now corrected by the OP, some progress can be made.


DSolve[2 equ1 + equ2 == 0, f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], {x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3}][[1, 1]]
(* f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3] -> C[1][x2/x1, x3/x1, y1, y2, y3] *)
DSolve[equ1 + 2 equ2 == 0, f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3], {x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3}][[1, 1]]
(* f[x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3] -> C[1][x1, x2, x3, y2/y1, y3/y1] *)

Consequently, the dimensionality of this problem can be reduced from six to four.


f[x1_, x2_, x3_, y1_, y2_, y3_] := g[x2/x1, x3/x1, y2/y1, y3/y1]
equ5 = FullSimplify[(equ3/x1) /. {x2 -> v2 x1, x3 -> v3 x1, y2 -> w2 y1, y3 -> w3 y1}]

(*       (v2 + v3)*w3*Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] + 
                v2*w2*Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] - 
   v3*(1 + 2*v2 + v3)*Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] - 
          v2*(1 + v2)*Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] *)
equ6 = FullSimplify[(equ4/y1) /. {x2 -> v2 x1, x3 -> v3 x1, y2 -> w2 y1, y3 -> w3 y1}]
(* -(w3*(1 + 2*w2 + w3)*Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3]) - 
            w2*(1 + w2)*Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] + 
            v3*(1 + w2)*Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] + 
                     v2*Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] *)


Although DSolve cannot solve these equations as a pair either, it can solve each separately.


DSolve[equ5 == 0, g[v2, v3, w2, w3], {v2, v3, w2, w3}][[1, 1]]/.C[1] -> c5
(* g[v2, v3, w2, w3] -> c5[(v2 (1 + v2 + v3))/v3, (1 + v2) w2, (v3 w3)/v2] *)
(DSolve[equ6 == 0, g[v2, v3, w2, w3], {v2, v3, w2, w3}][[1, 1]] /. 
    C[1] -> c6) // FullSimplify
(* g[v2, v3, w2, w3] -> c6[-((v3 (1 + w2))/v2), ((1 + w2) (1 + w2 + w3))/(v2 w3), 
   -Log[(1 + w2)/(v2 w2)]] *)

The first results indicates that g is a function of


var5 = List @@ %%[[2]]

(* {(v2 (1 + v2 + v3))/v3, (1 + v2) w2, (v3 w3)/v2} *)

and also


var6 = List @@ %%[[2]]
(* {-((v3 (1 + w2))/v2), ((1 + w2) (1 + w2 + w3))/(v2 w3), -Log[(1 + w2)/(v2 w2)]} *)

The second list of functions can be simplified by


var6[[3]] = Exp[var6[[3]]]; 
var6[[1]] = -var6[[1]] var6[[3]]; 
var6[[2]] = var6[[2]] var6[[3]]; 

var6
(* {v3 w2, (w2 (1 + w2 + w3))/w3, (v2 w2)/(1 + w2)} *)

The next step is to combine the two expressions for g to obtain a single expression, presumably as a function of two variables. I do not have time now to pursue this further and invite others to do so.


Completed Solution


The system of PDEs above can be solved using the procedure described in Chapter V, Sec IV of Goursat's Differential Equations. The first step is to find the complete, non-commutative group of differential operators that includes equ5 and equ6.


comm[equa_, equb_] :=
    Collect[(equa /. {Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equb, v2], 
    Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equb, v3], 
    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equb, w2], 

    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equb, w3]}) - 
    (equb /. {Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equa, v2], 
    Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equa, v3], 
    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equa, w2], 
    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] -> D[equa, w3]}), 
    {Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3], Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3], 
    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3], Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3]}, 
    Simplify]
equ7 = comm[equ5, equ6]
(* -(w3*(v3*(1 + w2 + w3) + v2*(1 + 2*w2 + w3))*Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][g][v2, v3, w2, w3])

- v2*w2*(1 + w2)*Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] + v3*(v3*(1 + w2) 
+ v2*(2 + w2))*Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] + 
v2^2*Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][g][v2, v3, w2, w3] *)

which by inspection is independent of equ5 and equ6. On the other hand, comm[equ5, equ7] and comm[equ6, equ7] do not yield independent equations, again by inspection. Thus {equ5, equ6, equ7} is a complete group of three operators in four independent variables. From this information alone, we know that g is an arbitrary function of precisely one first integral. This first integral can be obtained by systematically eliminating variables and equations, one pair at a time, until a single equation of two variable remains. Start by solving any one of the equations.


DSolve[equ5 == 0, g[v2, v3, w2, w3], {v2, v3, w2, w3}][[1, 1]]
(* g[v2, v3, w2, w3] -> C[1][(v2 (1 + v2 + v3))/v3, (1 + v2) w2, (v3 w3)/v2] *)

and use the solution as the basis for a change of variables


g[v2_, v3_, w2_, w3_] := h[w2, (v2 (1 + v2 + v3))/v3, (1 + v2) w2, (v3 w3)/v2]

solw2 = equ5/(v2 w2) // Simplify
(* Derivative[1, 0, 0, 0][h][w2, (v2*(1 + v2 + v3))/v3, (1 + v2)*w2, (v3*w3)/v2] *)

indicating that h is independent of w2. This leaves us with two equations in three variables


newvar = Solve[Thread[{b1, b2, b3, b4} == List @@ solw2], {v2, v3, w2, w3}] // Flatten;
(((b3 equ7/(b1 - b3)) // FullSimplify) /. solw2 -> 0 /. newvar) // FullSimplify;
Collect[((equ6 // FullSimplify) /. solw2 -> 0 /. newvar) // 
    FullSimplify, b1, FullSimplify] + % b1/b3
equ10 = %% /. Derivative[0, n1_, n2_, n3_][h][b1, b2, b3, b4] -> 
    Derivative[n1, n2, n3][h][b2, b3, b4]

(* b4*(b3 + b4 + b2*b4)*Derivative[0, 0, 1][h][b2, b3, b4] + (1 + b3)*
(b3*Derivative[0, 1, 0][h][b2, b3, b4] + (1 + b2)*Derivative[1, 0, 0][h][b2, b3, b4]) *)
equ11 = %% /. Derivative[0, n1_, n2_, n3_][h][b1, b2, b3, b4] -> 
    Derivative[n1, n2, n3][h][b2, b3, b4]
(* (-1 + b4)*b4*Derivative[0, 0, 1][h][b2, b3, b4] + (1 + b2 + b3)
*Derivative[1, 0, 0][h][b2, b3, b4] *)

Proceeding as before , we next solve one of equ10 and equ11. (Choose the simpler one.)


DSolve[equ11 == 0, h[b2, b3, b4], {b2, b3, b4}][[1, 1, 2]]
(* h[b2, b3, b4] -> C[1][b3][Log[(1 - b4)/((1 + b2 + b3) b4)] *)


and use it as the basis for a further change of variables.


h[b2_, b3_, b4_] := k[b2, b3, (1 - b4)/((1 + b2 + b3) b4)]
solb2 = (equ11/(1 + b2 + b3)) // Simplify
(* Derivative[1, 0, 0][k][b2, b3, (1 - b4)/(b4 + b2*b4 + b3*b4)] *)

indicating that k is independent of b2. This leaves us with one equation in two variables.


newvar1 = Solve[Thread[{c2, c3, c4} == List @@ solb2], {b2, b3, b4}] // Flatten;
((equ10 // FullSimplify) /. solb2 -> 0 /. newvar1) // FullSimplify
equ12 = % /. Derivative[0, n1_, n2_][k][c2, c3, c4] -> Derivative[n1, n2][k][c3, c4]

(* -((1 + c4 + 2*c3*c4)*Derivative[0, 1][k][c3, c4]) + c3*(1 + c3)
*Derivative[1, 0][k][c3, c4] *)

Finally, DSolve yields


DSolve[equ12 == 0, k[c3, c4], {c3, c4}][[1, 1, 2]]
(* k[c3, c4] -> C[1][c3 (1 + c4 + c3 c4)] *)

Transforming back to the original independent variables gives


(((% /. Thread[{c2, c3, c4} -> List @@ solb2]) // Simplify) /. 
    Thread[{b1, b2, b3, b4} -> List @@ solw2]) // Simplify

(* C[1][(v2 w2 (1 + (1 + v2) w2 + (1 + v2 + v3) w3))/((v2 + v3 + v3 w2) w3)] *)

Because so much algebra has been required, it seems prudent to verify the answer.


g[v2_, v3_, w2_, w3_] := %
{equ5, equ6, equ7} // Simplify
(* {0, 0, 0} *)

Finally, designating the solution for g as ansg,


(ansg /. {v2 -> x2/x1, v3 -> x3/x1, w2 -> y2/y1, w3 -> y3/y1}) // Simplify
(* C[1][(x2 y2 (x3 y3 + x2 (y2 + y3) + x1 (y1 + y2 + y3)))/(x1 (x2 y1 + x3 (y1 + y2)) y3)] *)

f[x1_, x2_, x3_, y1_, y2_, y3_] := %
{equ1, equ2, equ3, equ4}
(* {0, 0, 0, 0} *)

Thus f is an arbitrary function of a single first integral, as predicted. See also the related question, 102198.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....
Post a Comment
Read more